Tweet
Arif Yunusov: One should be pragmatist but not theorist when settling conflicts
Yunusov's interview with ArmInfo correspondent was ready to
publication when the information about detaining Yunusov and his wife
Leyla Yunus made us delay it, so that not to give another reason to
the official Baku `to prove' its accusation in the so called
`cooperation' with Armenia. Now, when the situation has been more or
less clarified, the editor's office has decided to publish the
interview.
by David Stepanyan
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=8ED7D460-D694-11E3-81C10EB7C0D21663
Thursday, May 8, 13:36
The name of the known human rights defender, conflictologist,
analyst, the head of the Department of Conflictology and Migration
Studies at the Baku-based Institute of Peace and Democracy, Arif
Yunusov, has been circulating in mass media of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Among other our Baku counterparts, Yunusov is accused in espionage
activity in favor of Armenian intelligence services, allegedly, as a
result of his participation in the international conferences organized
in Armenia. Yunusov's interview with ArmInfo correspondent was ready
to publication when the information about detaining Yunusov and his
wife Leyla Yunus made us delay it, so that not to give another reason
to the official Baku `to prove' its accusation in the so called
`cooperation' with Armenia. Now, when the situation has been more or
less clarified, the editor's office has decided to publish the
interview.
Certain circles in Armenia and Russia point at the Crimea like a
precedent for Nagornyy Karabakh. What is the most possible motivation
of that?
By pointing at Crimea as a precedent for Karabakh, Moscow tries to
exert pressure on Yerevan. This is just a message to Yerevan. In
other words, it is just an element of a political game, which does not
at all demonstrate that Russians are concerned over the fate of
Karabakh people. The question is who is making such statements.
Officials are responsible for their statements, especially given that
their words may be misinterpreted by another party. For instance, some
proposals have repeatedly been made in Armenia to recognize the
independence of Karabakh and unite it with Armenia. It is noteworthy
that the ruling party keeps making efforts to prevent it. It is clear
that they do that not because they like or dislike the people of
Karabakh, but because they realize that such steps will immediately
affect the peace process and that Baku's response will create a new
situation that will change the whole format of the peace process.
I think that freer experts and journalists can afford more but the
people bearing direct responsibility for the peace process cannot. In
Azerbaijan the opposition experts' statements on Crimea are much freer
than the careful response of the authorities who realize that the
relations with Moscow may inevitably become tense. This is why
whenever I hear that a particular conflict is a precedent for another
conflict, I know that it first of all demonstrates that the conflict
will not be resolved soon. To search for precedents means to lack the
aspiration to resolve the conflict by the direct efforts of the
conflicting parties, I believe that the parties to any conflict
resolve the conflict by themselves if they want. If they have no
desire to resolve it, they look for "elder brothers" and precedents.
Besides the Crimea, both Kosovo and Eritrea could have been precedents
for Karabakh. History has a plenty of examples. When resolving
conflicts, one should be a pragmatist rather than a theorist .
Armenia supported the right of the people of the Crimea for
self-determination. Is such a stance of our leadership stemming only
from the interest of the expected recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh?
Intrinsically, none of the states, including the USA, which speaks
of democracy so much, displays an approach meeting some international
principles. The right to self-determination is a two-edged sword.
Azerbaijan considers itself a victim of separatism and raises this
issue in Iran, where Azeris live in the northern provinces. Turkey
does the same in Cyprus. Europeans speak so much of democratic values
but we perfectly see that they give high priority to the energy
values. Europe blames Russia for using gas as a tool of blackmail and
at the same time turns a blind eye to the similar actions of
Azerbaijan. In the relations with Azerbaijan, Europe puts the
democratic principles aside. In this light, I perceive such talks as
diplomatic rhetoric. As regards pragmatism, it is restricted to
Realpolitik which is far from all these principles.
This is big geopolitical game, in which strong pressure is being
exerted on Armenia and other countries. So, Russia badly needs its
actions in Ukraine to be supported not only by its strategic allies,
especially given Lukashenko's silence and the fact that initially
Nazarbayev was totally against recognition of Crimea. Therefore, now
Russia gives high priority to the response of Armenia, which kept
silence in 2008. As for the West, it needs an absolutely different
response from Yerevan. I think that the steps of small Armenia, which
is swimming between the waves of pressure, should meet its own
national interests. One should understand that the unresolved
Karabakh problem dictates deliberation. A statement in Yerevan will
inevitably be followed by a response in Baku. And it is still a big
question who will benefit from the following developments.
Ankara links its refusal to open the border to Armenia with
Azerbaijan's pressure. Is it really so?
Certainly, Azerbaijan uses all its possibilities to exert pressure on
Ankara in order to prevent it from unblocking the Turkish-Armenian
border. Nevertheless, if we take a pragmatic view of this issue, it
becomes clear that small Azerbaijan is unable to dictate Turkey's
foreign political agenda. And of Turkey decides to open
Turkish-Armenian border, it will not even take Azerbaijan's stance
into account. So, if Turkey takes such a decision tomorrow, it will
not even take into account Azerbaijan's stance. Neither does Turkey
give much importance to the Armenian Cause, which is so important to
Armenia. Most Turks do not even know what happened in 1915. Turkey
gives high priority to the relations with the West, with the European
Union. Turks are imperial people and in this context they can be
compared with Russians. Armenians, Azeris, Georgians are small
nations, which are constantly looking for "elder brothers'.
In the meantime, Russians and Turks have an absolutely different
psychology. In fact, Russians do not care for Georgia or Armenia.
Russians demand respect from the United States and Europe. The same
can be said about Turks, who are eager to join the European Union.
But when they throw sand in the wheels of Turks and demand normalizing
relations with Armenia, Turks understand that after normalizing
relations with Armenia they will be forced to improve relations with
Kurds and so on and so forth. Therefore, Turkey perceives the Armenian
Cause as an element of big geopolitics in relations with Europe, which
does not want to admit Turkey to its Christian club - European Union.
So, if Turkey understands that it really has the prospects to join the
EU, it will immediately open the Turkish-Armenian border even without
taking into account the stance of Azerbaijan.
What is the key motivation of the USA demanding from Turkey to unblock
the border to Armenia?
The USA remembers about the shut down border from time to time
especially before the elections, taking into consideration the role,
authority and the votes of the Armenian Diaspora. But in general, not
so much Armenians as Russia is important for the USA. That is to say,
everything is again returning to the course of the big geo-political
game, the part of which is confrontation between the USA and Russia
for controlling the South Caucasus, the Azerbaijani political expert.
The improvement of relations between Turkey and Armenia will cast
doubt upon Russia's influence in Armenia and the necessity of its
military base deployment in Armenia. That is to say. much will
change. This is the reason, why I have never believed that Moscow is
really striving to settle the Karabakh conflict. If the conflict is
settled suddenly and normal relations are established between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, the problems between Armenia and Turkey will be
automatically removed. In that case a question will arise - who will
the Russian base protect Armenia from? Iran?
Meanwhile, though it is paradoxical. but today the pro-Western moods
are stronger in Armenia than in Azerbaijan. Who knows, what will
happen tomorrow after settlement of the Karabakh conflict. I think
that the Karabakh conflict is like a punching ball for Russia, which
the latter uses from time to time for imposing pressure either upon
Armenia or Azerbaijan. From time to time, Russia promises to help
either Baku or Yerevan to settle the Karabakh conflict, according to
the principle "if you behave well". Actually, they will never help
either Azerbaijan or Armenia. Karabakh should hang thick in the air
and Armenia and Azerbaijan remain tied to Karabakh. Just for this
reason, Americans are so much hurry to settle the Karabakh conflict
and to open the border between Armenia and Turkey. This will make it
possible to withdraw Russia from the region. Not the American altruism
is the reason of that, but the struggle for the influence in the
region.
The Iranian counterparts have been traditionally blaming the USA and
Israel for the tense relationas between Iran and Azerbaijan. What is
your point of view on thematter?
When my Iranian counterparts traditionally blame the USA and Israel
for the tense Iran-Azerbaijan relations, I want to ask them. Why does
Iran hinder restoration and enhancing of the Azerbaijan-Israel
relations? We have Israel's Embassy in Baku, but despite availability
of a big Azerbaijani community in Israel, we do not have Azerbaijan's
Embassy in Tel-Aviv. The reason of it is that Iran is absolutely
against normalization of relations between our countries. For this
reason, Iran is the third party in the relations between Azerbaijan
and Israel. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani society remembers very well
Iran's stance in the Karabakh conflict and thinks it is not impartial,
although Iran does not think so. Certainly, there is misunderstanding,
weak contacts and the role of the third countries in the relations
between Baku and Teheran. The point is, in what assembly to revise all
this. I think that undoubtedly the problem of Islam is the main
thunder for Azerbaijan from the Iranian party as well as the policy of
Iran regarding the national minorities of Azerbaijan: the Talish and
Tat nations. So, if in its relations with Azerbaijan Russia uses the
problem of the Lezgins and naturally the Karabakh conflict, just the
same way, Iran uses the national minorities in its own interests. The
"Seher-2" TV channel is an anti-Azerbaijani one, which broadcasts
anti-Azerbaijani propaganda in Azerbaijani language every day.
Naturally, the small Azerbaijan does not like it, as it has its own
phobias regarding Iran. Incidentally, for its part, Iran scares an
independent Azerbaijan which promotes separatist moods in its northern
provinces.
Yunusov's interview with ArmInfo correspondent was ready to
publication when the information about detaining Yunusov and his wife
Leyla Yunus made us delay it, so that not to give another reason to
the official Baku `to prove' its accusation in the so called
`cooperation' with Armenia. Now, when the situation has been more or
less clarified, the editor's office has decided to publish the
interview.
by David Stepanyan
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=8ED7D460-D694-11E3-81C10EB7C0D21663
Thursday, May 8, 13:36
The name of the known human rights defender, conflictologist,
analyst, the head of the Department of Conflictology and Migration
Studies at the Baku-based Institute of Peace and Democracy, Arif
Yunusov, has been circulating in mass media of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Among other our Baku counterparts, Yunusov is accused in espionage
activity in favor of Armenian intelligence services, allegedly, as a
result of his participation in the international conferences organized
in Armenia. Yunusov's interview with ArmInfo correspondent was ready
to publication when the information about detaining Yunusov and his
wife Leyla Yunus made us delay it, so that not to give another reason
to the official Baku `to prove' its accusation in the so called
`cooperation' with Armenia. Now, when the situation has been more or
less clarified, the editor's office has decided to publish the
interview.
Certain circles in Armenia and Russia point at the Crimea like a
precedent for Nagornyy Karabakh. What is the most possible motivation
of that?
By pointing at Crimea as a precedent for Karabakh, Moscow tries to
exert pressure on Yerevan. This is just a message to Yerevan. In
other words, it is just an element of a political game, which does not
at all demonstrate that Russians are concerned over the fate of
Karabakh people. The question is who is making such statements.
Officials are responsible for their statements, especially given that
their words may be misinterpreted by another party. For instance, some
proposals have repeatedly been made in Armenia to recognize the
independence of Karabakh and unite it with Armenia. It is noteworthy
that the ruling party keeps making efforts to prevent it. It is clear
that they do that not because they like or dislike the people of
Karabakh, but because they realize that such steps will immediately
affect the peace process and that Baku's response will create a new
situation that will change the whole format of the peace process.
I think that freer experts and journalists can afford more but the
people bearing direct responsibility for the peace process cannot. In
Azerbaijan the opposition experts' statements on Crimea are much freer
than the careful response of the authorities who realize that the
relations with Moscow may inevitably become tense. This is why
whenever I hear that a particular conflict is a precedent for another
conflict, I know that it first of all demonstrates that the conflict
will not be resolved soon. To search for precedents means to lack the
aspiration to resolve the conflict by the direct efforts of the
conflicting parties, I believe that the parties to any conflict
resolve the conflict by themselves if they want. If they have no
desire to resolve it, they look for "elder brothers" and precedents.
Besides the Crimea, both Kosovo and Eritrea could have been precedents
for Karabakh. History has a plenty of examples. When resolving
conflicts, one should be a pragmatist rather than a theorist .
Armenia supported the right of the people of the Crimea for
self-determination. Is such a stance of our leadership stemming only
from the interest of the expected recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh?
Intrinsically, none of the states, including the USA, which speaks
of democracy so much, displays an approach meeting some international
principles. The right to self-determination is a two-edged sword.
Azerbaijan considers itself a victim of separatism and raises this
issue in Iran, where Azeris live in the northern provinces. Turkey
does the same in Cyprus. Europeans speak so much of democratic values
but we perfectly see that they give high priority to the energy
values. Europe blames Russia for using gas as a tool of blackmail and
at the same time turns a blind eye to the similar actions of
Azerbaijan. In the relations with Azerbaijan, Europe puts the
democratic principles aside. In this light, I perceive such talks as
diplomatic rhetoric. As regards pragmatism, it is restricted to
Realpolitik which is far from all these principles.
This is big geopolitical game, in which strong pressure is being
exerted on Armenia and other countries. So, Russia badly needs its
actions in Ukraine to be supported not only by its strategic allies,
especially given Lukashenko's silence and the fact that initially
Nazarbayev was totally against recognition of Crimea. Therefore, now
Russia gives high priority to the response of Armenia, which kept
silence in 2008. As for the West, it needs an absolutely different
response from Yerevan. I think that the steps of small Armenia, which
is swimming between the waves of pressure, should meet its own
national interests. One should understand that the unresolved
Karabakh problem dictates deliberation. A statement in Yerevan will
inevitably be followed by a response in Baku. And it is still a big
question who will benefit from the following developments.
Ankara links its refusal to open the border to Armenia with
Azerbaijan's pressure. Is it really so?
Certainly, Azerbaijan uses all its possibilities to exert pressure on
Ankara in order to prevent it from unblocking the Turkish-Armenian
border. Nevertheless, if we take a pragmatic view of this issue, it
becomes clear that small Azerbaijan is unable to dictate Turkey's
foreign political agenda. And of Turkey decides to open
Turkish-Armenian border, it will not even take Azerbaijan's stance
into account. So, if Turkey takes such a decision tomorrow, it will
not even take into account Azerbaijan's stance. Neither does Turkey
give much importance to the Armenian Cause, which is so important to
Armenia. Most Turks do not even know what happened in 1915. Turkey
gives high priority to the relations with the West, with the European
Union. Turks are imperial people and in this context they can be
compared with Russians. Armenians, Azeris, Georgians are small
nations, which are constantly looking for "elder brothers'.
In the meantime, Russians and Turks have an absolutely different
psychology. In fact, Russians do not care for Georgia or Armenia.
Russians demand respect from the United States and Europe. The same
can be said about Turks, who are eager to join the European Union.
But when they throw sand in the wheels of Turks and demand normalizing
relations with Armenia, Turks understand that after normalizing
relations with Armenia they will be forced to improve relations with
Kurds and so on and so forth. Therefore, Turkey perceives the Armenian
Cause as an element of big geopolitics in relations with Europe, which
does not want to admit Turkey to its Christian club - European Union.
So, if Turkey understands that it really has the prospects to join the
EU, it will immediately open the Turkish-Armenian border even without
taking into account the stance of Azerbaijan.
What is the key motivation of the USA demanding from Turkey to unblock
the border to Armenia?
The USA remembers about the shut down border from time to time
especially before the elections, taking into consideration the role,
authority and the votes of the Armenian Diaspora. But in general, not
so much Armenians as Russia is important for the USA. That is to say,
everything is again returning to the course of the big geo-political
game, the part of which is confrontation between the USA and Russia
for controlling the South Caucasus, the Azerbaijani political expert.
The improvement of relations between Turkey and Armenia will cast
doubt upon Russia's influence in Armenia and the necessity of its
military base deployment in Armenia. That is to say. much will
change. This is the reason, why I have never believed that Moscow is
really striving to settle the Karabakh conflict. If the conflict is
settled suddenly and normal relations are established between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, the problems between Armenia and Turkey will be
automatically removed. In that case a question will arise - who will
the Russian base protect Armenia from? Iran?
Meanwhile, though it is paradoxical. but today the pro-Western moods
are stronger in Armenia than in Azerbaijan. Who knows, what will
happen tomorrow after settlement of the Karabakh conflict. I think
that the Karabakh conflict is like a punching ball for Russia, which
the latter uses from time to time for imposing pressure either upon
Armenia or Azerbaijan. From time to time, Russia promises to help
either Baku or Yerevan to settle the Karabakh conflict, according to
the principle "if you behave well". Actually, they will never help
either Azerbaijan or Armenia. Karabakh should hang thick in the air
and Armenia and Azerbaijan remain tied to Karabakh. Just for this
reason, Americans are so much hurry to settle the Karabakh conflict
and to open the border between Armenia and Turkey. This will make it
possible to withdraw Russia from the region. Not the American altruism
is the reason of that, but the struggle for the influence in the
region.
The Iranian counterparts have been traditionally blaming the USA and
Israel for the tense relationas between Iran and Azerbaijan. What is
your point of view on thematter?
When my Iranian counterparts traditionally blame the USA and Israel
for the tense Iran-Azerbaijan relations, I want to ask them. Why does
Iran hinder restoration and enhancing of the Azerbaijan-Israel
relations? We have Israel's Embassy in Baku, but despite availability
of a big Azerbaijani community in Israel, we do not have Azerbaijan's
Embassy in Tel-Aviv. The reason of it is that Iran is absolutely
against normalization of relations between our countries. For this
reason, Iran is the third party in the relations between Azerbaijan
and Israel. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani society remembers very well
Iran's stance in the Karabakh conflict and thinks it is not impartial,
although Iran does not think so. Certainly, there is misunderstanding,
weak contacts and the role of the third countries in the relations
between Baku and Teheran. The point is, in what assembly to revise all
this. I think that undoubtedly the problem of Islam is the main
thunder for Azerbaijan from the Iranian party as well as the policy of
Iran regarding the national minorities of Azerbaijan: the Talish and
Tat nations. So, if in its relations with Azerbaijan Russia uses the
problem of the Lezgins and naturally the Karabakh conflict, just the
same way, Iran uses the national minorities in its own interests. The
"Seher-2" TV channel is an anti-Azerbaijani one, which broadcasts
anti-Azerbaijani propaganda in Azerbaijani language every day.
Naturally, the small Azerbaijan does not like it, as it has its own
phobias regarding Iran. Incidentally, for its part, Iran scares an
independent Azerbaijan which promotes separatist moods in its northern
provinces.